1. This application under section 435/439, Cr. P. C. I directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, dated 26-4-1978, rejecting the second bail application of the applicant. It is prayed in this application to set aside the said order and release the applicant on bail.
2. The applicant is accused of an offence under section 302, P. P. C. For committing the murder of one Mohammad Bashir on 18-9-1977 at 5 p.m. By causing him knife injuries. P. Ws. Amirzada, Munawwar and Inamul Haq were with the deceased at that time and had witnessed the occurrence. The applicant was also found with minor injuries on his person which corrobo--rated the fact of his participation in the crime as was alleged.
3. The Bail Application No. 70/70 was moved on behalf of the applicant in the High Court which was dismissed by the order dated 28-1-1978, wherein the main ground agitated was that the applicant had caused the injuries to the deceased in exercise of his right of self-defence and that his case was covered by section 100, P. P. C. Which plea was rejected, as being premature, as no evidence at all was recorded in the case, and there was nothing in the evidence in support of the contention.
4. The applicant had also been examined by the Police Surgeon on 13-12-1977 in respect of age. On the basis of X-ray report and clinical findings, the age of the applicant was determined to be 19 years. No ground of age was agitated before the High Court.
5. Thereafter another bail application was repeated in the Court of Sessions, Karachi, and the question of the age of the applicant being a minor at the time of alleged offence was taken up. In support of that contention school leaving certificates and affidavits by his father, brother and maternal uncle were filed with the application.
6. On behalf of the applicant it was also submitted before the Sessions Court to call for the applicant from jail for personal observation. The applicant was accordingly called and was seen personally by the learned Judge, who observed that he could hardly find any justification to express his opinion different from that of the Police Surgeon whose opinion was based on the X-ray report and the clinical findings.
7. The X-ray report and the clinical findings of the Police Surgeon were questioned before the Court of Session as being wrong and mala fide and a further request was made for the appointment of a Medical Board of Doctors for re-examination of the applicant for determination of his age afresh, which was not accepted and the application was rejected.
8. The learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. S. Nasiruddin has argued in support of this Revision Application and has contended that instead of repeating another bail application, he has preferred to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court exercising its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order of rejecting bail to the applicant. The grounds advanced do not merit the setting aside of the impugned order which is legal and proper.
9. It has further been submitted that the applicant is minor. The School Leaving Certificates and the affidavits of the father, brother and the maternal uncle of the applicant cannot be accepted in support of age to be 15 years and less than 16 years. When the age of the applicant was already determined by the doctor to be 19 years, on the basis of X-ray, which is the ossification of bones and also the other clinical observations, it is difficult to overlook such an opinion and prefer the affidavits filed so late, of the father, brother and the uncle of the applicant, along with the School leaving certificates.
10. It is also argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have held the inquiry as regards the age of the applicant. When the medical opinion was already on the record, any further inquiry was rightly found to be unnecessary.
11. In support of his arguments, reliance was placed on two cases reported in PLD 1977 SC 273 and 1975 P Cr. L J 1110 wherein the facts were altogether different and have no bearing on the facts in the instant case.
12. Finally the usual point of delay was taken up that the case has not yet proceeded and would take two to three years to be disposed of. These days point of delay is being repeatedly urged with force. There is no doubt, that delay does occur in the disposal of some cases, due to various factors. In view of the Law Reforms, all the murder cases were sent to the Court of Sessions, where many old Sessions cases were already pending., There is shortage of the Sessions and the Additional Sessions Judges comparing it with the quantum of the work in Courts of District and Sessions Judges. Ordinary delay, under such circumstances is expected. In the instant case, the incident is alleged to have taken place on 18-9-77. The case for the first time came up for bearing on 15-10-77 as is shown in the case diary, Annexure A/8 (page 49). It is little over 8 months for this case, which is pending disposal in the Court of Sessions, where there are hundreds of cases reported to be pending. Under the circumstances, the delay is neither inordinate nor scandalous.
13. There is no merit in the application, which is accordingly dismissed.